2 excellent posts from 2 great posters. i am more in tune with post #39. dan, being that i started this thread in the nfl forum, you can bet it will find its way to the blast furnace somehow, some way

i see rush working, and really couldnt care about his political views or target audience. it is all entertainment and what "feeds his family".

but the nfl is bigger than rush and he knows this, infact id say about as many people watched the last superbowl as turned out to cast a vote in the last presidential election (just guessing- anyone feel free to prove me wrong).

i just wish he would leave the nfl out of his political agenda, propoganda err... entertainment. like i said "one step forward, 2 steps back". theres millions of other things the media covers that he can use to prove his "points".

since i typically ignore him since he was busted as a "hillbilly heroin" (oxycontin) addict, i dont really know.... is he this vocal about the media coverage of the mlb, pga, nba, nhl, or nascar? if he is, he should leave sports alone all together and stick to political or worldly issues.

but really, the nfl is making small strides to improve the situation and the progress is visible.

i would still take steve young over michael vick or d. culpepper, but on the flipside i would still take kordell stewart over cade mcnown or ryan leaf.

2 excellent posts from 2 great posters. i am more in tune with post #39. dan, being that i started this thread in the nfl forum, you can bet it will find its way to the blast furnace somehow, some way

i see rush working, and really couldnt care about his political views or target audience. it is all entertainment and what "feeds his family".

but the nfl is bigger than rush and he knows this, infact id say about as many people watched the last superbowl as turned out to cast a vote in the last presidential election (just guessing- anyone feel free to prove me wrong).

i just wish he would leave the nfl out of his political agenda, propoganda err... entertainment. like i said "one step forward, 2 steps back". theres millions of other things the media covers that he can use to prove his "points".

since i typically ignore him since he was busted as a "hillbilly heroin" (oxycontin) addict, i dont really know.... is he this vocal about the media coverage of the mlb, pga, nba, nhl, or nascar? if he is, he should leave sports alone all together and stick to political or worldly issues.

but really, the nfl is making small strides to improve the situation and the progress is visible.

i would still take steve young over michael vick or d. culpepper, but on the flipside i would still take kordell stewart over cade mcnown or ryan leaf.

HOW DARE YOU!!!

BRINGING KORDELL STEWART INTO THIS CONVERSATION?? IS NOTHING SACRED TO YOU!!!

I do not even know if this thread could go to the Blast Furnace, but since we are now commenting on the attitudes of the posters rather than Rush's comments I will respond here.

Preacher - I respect your posts on football but when it comes to our views on Rush Limbaugh you and I are 180 degrees apart.

So, to use one example, playing the theme from the Jeffersons while doing a riff on welfare is just good clean fun that has nothing to do with stereotyping individuals on the basis of race? The fact that "some of his best friends are black" does not change Rush's MO for his broadcast.

Rush plays to a white male audience (good for him - he is an entertainer, not a political philosopher) and IMHO panders to that audience quite a bit (once again - go for it; he is ratings driven in a ratings driven business).

You may have a different opinion, which I will respect, but spare me the condescension about me being intellectually dishonest. As for viewing Rush through the prism of our political beliefs, I would submit for your consideration that Rush's apologists might excuse a lot of his less defensible actions because he roots, roots, roots for the GOP home team (except of course when he tells us after the GOP's rout last November that he is relieved he no longer has to defend the excesses of the Republican Congress.)

I think Rush is, to use Peter King's term on MMQB this morning, a "race-o-holic." You certainly can disagree with that conclusion without attacking the character or intellectual rigor of those who do not share your views.

I write this as someone who voted for Reagan twice and the incumbent in 2000

Clarification - in 2000 I voted for the current holder of the highest political office in the Fruited Plain.

I did not write in Clinton's name for a third term.

I was up ALL NIGHT watching those election returns.

What really burned me was when other nations were making snied comments about it. I heard one american reporter retort... In other countries, there would be tanks in the streets. Here, most people go about their day without really caring on a day to day basis.

I thought that was a rather astute point! It actually made me proud of the American press for once.